ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2024
Inter-Semispinalis Plane Block Versus General Anesthesia for Postoperative Analgesia in Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07340801 (Analgesic Efficacy of Ultrasound-guided Inter-semispinal Fascial Plane Block), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Analgesic Efficacy of Ultrasound-guided Inter-semispinal Fascial Plane Block (ISPB) Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) in Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blinded Study.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative pain management is crucial for improving patient outcomes following posterior cervical spine surgery. Opioids are effective but carry a risk of respiratory depression. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used but may not provide adequate pain relief and have potential complications. The inter-semispinalis plane (ISPB) block is a novel technique for postoperative analgesia in cervical spine surgery. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of the ISPB with general anesthesia in terms of analgesia, postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, patient-surgeon satisfaction levels, and the occurrence of postoperative complications. Methods: This double-blind, randomized controlled trial was blinded to both the patient and the assessor. Fifty adult patients (18 - 60 years old) undergoing elective posterior cervical spine surgery were enrolled. The participants were divided into 2 groups: The ISPB group (receiving bilateral ultrasound-guided ISPB at the C5 level) and the control group (receiving general anesthesia only), with each group comprising 25 patients. The study assessed intraoperative fentanyl use, postoperative VAS pain levels, the need for rescue analgesia, and complications. Results: The ISPB group showed significantly lower intraoperative fentanyl consumption (median 100 vs. 100 - 150 μg, P = 0.022) and lower postoperative pain scores at 1, 8, 12, and 48 hours (P = 0.016, 0.009, 0.005, 0.016). Additionally, the ISPB group required less postoperative pethidine (20% vs. 64%, P = 0.002) and had a longer delay before requesting pethidine (hazard ratio 0.215, P = 0.001). Surgeon satisfaction was significantly higher in the ISPB group (P = 0.003). These results suggest that the ISPB can effectively reduce pain and analgesic requirements. Conclusions: The ISPB is an effective analgesic technique for posterior cervical spine surgery, reducing opioid consumption, providing better pain control, and enhancing surgeon satisfaction without increasing complications. This approach has the potential to improve postoperative care and patient outcomes in this surgical population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.